Stop familiarity breeding contempt

The findings of Professor Betsy Stanko’s work with the Metropolitan Police since 2000 challenge some long-held assumptions about hate crime. Many people presume that distance, dissimilarity, and unfamiliarity motivate hatred.

In fact, what most commonly lies behind racist and homophobic violence – with high-profile exceptions such as the bombing of the Admiral Duncan pub in Soho – is proximity and familiarity, the behaviour of neighbours, business associates and other acquaintances of victims.

Professor Stanko, who is the Met’s research expert on hate crime, addressed delegates on this subject at RaceActionNet’s Conference last month.

The incidents that come to police attention – be they threat, attack or abuse – are the kinds of encounters that are often difficult to avoid. People can face threats and danger every day – though it may take a lot for them to go to the police.

In a snapshot study of all domestic violence and hate crime recorded on one day in March 2002, only 15% (about one in seven) of victims of racist attacks had previously reported a racist incident to police. But a more detailed analysis revealed that nearly three in five had experienced a racist incident before.

What this says is that reporting an incident of hate crime to the police is a last resort for victims, something that they do when they can’t bear the hurt any longer – which is not to say that they wouldn’t welcome official intervention to deal with the problem before it got to that stage.

Much homophobic violence reported to the Met was the outcome of neighbour disputes and harassment by local young people. Crime recording and intelligence gathering tell us that victims who report racist violence are most likely to be threatened by “locals” – neighbours and children are the most common offenders.

At the conference, Professor Stanko set out a critical role for social landlords to play within local crime reduction and community safety partnerships. She made a number of recommendations based on her research.

Preventing crime

Crime prevention and community safety partners should share data with the police about criminal and anti-social behaviour, ranging from serious personal attacks and criminal damage to more minor acts such as graffiti.

Links with schools and dispute mediation projects, the evidence suggests, are critical parts of any crime prevention team to reduce racist and homophobic violence.

Intervention strategies that address the actions of neighbours and schoolchildren are likely to reach many of the problems of abuse people bring to police attention.

Multi-agency partnerships are ultimately the most comprehensive means of providing the broadest intervention strategies. It is virtually impossible to challenge hate crime and domestic violence without the participation of health, education, housing and social services.

What RSLs can do

• Join local multi-agency partnerships if you’ve not already done so
• Record information about racial harassment and anti-social behaviour – names, events, locations, relationships, and circumstances – to identify risk factors and areas needing intervention. This data should be categorised in ways that make it easy to understand what action is needed. The Home Office suggests the following method of classification: misuse of public space; disregard for community/ personal well being; acts directed at people; and environmental damage. The Home Office suggests three sources of information should be used: reports from members of the public received by service providers; incidents witnessed by service providers; public perceptions collected in surveys.
• Better quality information and classification should lead to more effective action. RSLs should consider the full range of interventions and actions available to them in dealing with anti-social behaviour and racial harassment – behaviour which generates misery for people on a daily basis unless it’s challenged and stopped at an early stage. This doesn’t just mean anti-social behaviours orders, but approaches such as acceptable behaviour contracts, and parenting contracts and orders. These remedies seek to encourage good behaviour as well as prohibit bad behaviour. Social landlords also have their traditional powers to seek injunctions and possession.
• In being prepared to take action, social landlords need to assess their resources, training and other support needs. Do their housing officers know the difference between civil and criminal legal remedies? Do they feel confident in visiting local schools? Are they equipped to mediate in conflicts between neighbours? Ultimately, can social landlords claim to be equal partners in the battle against some of today’s most pressing social problems?
• Gerard Lemos is director of Race Action Net and a partner in social research company Lemos & Crane